Rivka Moroshko

Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann et al. · amazon-science, baidu

In this report, we introduce the Gemini 2.X model family: Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 2.5 Flash, as well as our earlier Gemini 2.0 Flash and Flash-Lite models. Gemini 2.5 Pro is our most capable model yet, achieving SoTA performance on frontier coding and reasoning benchmarks. In addition to its incredible coding and reasoning skills, Gemini 2.5 Pro is a thinking model that excels at multimodal understanding and it is now able to process up to 3 hours of video content. Its unique combination of long context, multimodal and reasoning capabilities can be combined to unlock new agentic workflows. Gemini 2.5 Flash provides excellent reasoning abilities at a fraction of the compute and latency requirements and Gemini 2.0 Flash and Flash-Lite provide high performance at low latency and cost. Taken together, the Gemini 2.X model generation spans the full Pareto frontier of model capability vs cost, allowing users to explore the boundaries of what is possible with complex agentic problem solving.

Isaac R. Galatzer-Levy, Jed McGiffin, David Munday et al.

Generative AI's rapid advancement sparks interest in its cognitive abilities, especially given its capacity for tasks like language understanding and code generation. This study explores how several recent GenAI models perform on the Clock Drawing Test (CDT), a neuropsychological assessment of visuospatial planning and organization. While models create clock-like drawings, they struggle with accurate time representation, showing deficits similar to mild-severe cognitive impairment (Wechsler, 2009). Errors include numerical sequencing issues, incorrect clock times, and irrelevant additions, despite accurate rendering of clock features. Only GPT 4 Turbo and Gemini Pro 1.5 produced the correct time, scoring like healthy individuals (4/4). A follow-up clock-reading test revealed only Sonnet 3.5 succeeded, suggesting drawing deficits stem from difficulty with numerical concepts. These findings may reflect weaknesses in visual-spatial understanding, working memory, or calculation, highlighting strengths in learned knowledge but weaknesses in reasoning. Comparing human and machine performance is crucial for understanding AI's cognitive capabilities and guiding development toward human-like cognitive functions.